Comments for HumanistLifehttp://humanistlife.org.uk
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 02:34:33 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Comment on Common ground dialogue: how can humanists and Muslims live and work together in 21st century London? by Nadirahttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/01/19/common-ground-dialogue-how-can-humanists-and-muslims-live-and-work-together-in-21st-century-london/#comment-351829
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 02:34:33 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1000#comment-351829Dear writer,
Thank you for writing this rarely outstanding event. I’m so interested in having information about how britishs Muslim citizens see their beliefs.
It seems Islam has been a trending topic to discuss there. I’m deligthful to see a lot of perspective in analyzing the condition of Islam movement around the world.
Hopefully this event can build an understanding faith dialogue and stop the violence which caused by different beliefs in UK, also in the world.
Regards,
Indonesian Muslim
]]>Comment on Bigger fish to Fry? by Matt Hickshttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/09/bigger-fish-to-fry/#comment-350533
Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:16:45 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1024#comment-350533John,
I see your point. What I mean is that there are some debates which up against more pressing issues are pointless. Debate about God is not entirely pointless if it serves to clarify to the person what it is they think or need to revise. Smug clamoring for intellectual high ground when there are important matters we could be attending to is pointless. Does that make sense. I appreciate you bringing me to task John. Thank you.
]]>Comment on Ten facts about ‘faith’ schools by Roshan Doughttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2014/06/23/ten-facts-about-faith-schools/#comment-348120
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:44:23 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=530#comment-348120I am currently doing research in multicultural education and I just wanted to say that I found your own research compelling and interesting to read. Well done…
]]>Comment on Bigger fish to Fry? by John Dakinhttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/09/bigger-fish-to-fry/#comment-347334
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:41:14 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1024#comment-347334Matt, you say, “My point is that rage spent on attempting to reverse injustice and suffering is much more productive than rage spent on pointless debate”; but then, in reply to my first response, you say:”Debate is indeed useful”, which sounds a little contradictory. Of course we can find common ground, and people already do, in countless ways. As for Fry, he is not so much talking about man-made injustice as natural disasters which are not caused by us humans,
]]>Comment on Bigger fish to Fry? by John Dakinhttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/09/bigger-fish-to-fry/#comment-347195
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 19:50:41 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1024#comment-347195I largely agree with you; but anger about bone cancer in children–Stephen Fry’s first example–though understandable, is not rational if you take an omnipotent god out of the equation; if you believe that this world is all there is, and that cancer is a product of that world, there is not anything to be angry with. I think that some people posed the question: Why is Fry so angry with a god he does not believe in? But I think that his anger was quite legitimate if directed, not at a non-existent god, but at the religious who promote their god as benign, and–my bugbear at the moment–the BBC, who reinforce this belief by giving believers an unchallenged platform in programs like “Thought for the Day” and “Sunday”; it is also legitimate to be angry at the privileges given to Christianity in our Constitution. Even the Independent on Sunday allowed Richard Harries a platform in which he promoted the view that the Bible teaches us that God hates cruelty above everything. I wrote to the paper challenging this view, but it was not published. We are still dominated by the respect agenda.
]]>Comment on Bigger fish to Fry? by Matt Hickshttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/09/bigger-fish-to-fry/#comment-340915
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:56:24 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1024#comment-340915John, read the of again and you’ll see we come from a similar view. Debate is indeed useful and in fact essential but my article was a response to the people who responded to the interview rather than a response to the interview itself. The storm it caused amongst people smugly trying to get the intellectual high ground, missed the point that Fry was displaying a universal language. That of anger toward injustice. My point being that those with any integrity would have identified with that anger rather than trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist.
]]>Comment on Bigger fish to Fry? by John Dakinhttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/09/bigger-fish-to-fry/#comment-340888
Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:14:48 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1024#comment-340888I disagree; debate and argument are useful; isn’t that the lesson of Plato and Aristotle? But debate should include listening to the other; a good example took place decades ago on BBC television when the atheist Marghantita Laski held a series of discussions with Metropolitan Antony Bloom; they did, of course, find a lot of common ground. Of course, Stephen Fry was not debating with Gay Byrne, he was responding to a hypothetical question.But I think that the Laski/Bloom discussions are something missing today; but a group of humanists did meet with a group of Muslims under the aegis of the British Humanist Association for the purpose of mutual understanding.So, what is needed is both coming together over things which can unite us–anger at various types of suffering and abuse–and frank, respectful discussion of differences.
]]>Comment on Please don’t bash our media freedoms: one humanist’s plea for careful language by Tony Charlesworthhttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/05/please-dont-bash-our-media-freedoms-one-humanists-plea-for-careful-language/#comment-337337
Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:08:37 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1015#comment-337337Just to add — it’s clear, as Jen points out, that some media organisations (notably, of course, “The Daily Mail”) are pushing a particular political agenda. I’m not a great “Daily Mail” fan myself either. But that’s why media pluralism is such an important principle to defend at all costs.
]]>Comment on Please don’t bash our media freedoms: one humanist’s plea for careful language by David McKnighthttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/05/please-dont-bash-our-media-freedoms-one-humanists-plea-for-careful-language/#comment-336781
Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:40:44 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1015#comment-336781I hope that you will agree that to get things changed we need to get down deep into cultural beginnings and then figure out
1) What method of cultural change we would use on each our own short comings?
2) What needs changing and how far the change?
3) How to keep balance so that we do not inadvertently throw something good out?
4) How to affect the change at a reasonable and positive pace, perhaps bartering changes of equal importance?
5) Solutions to difficulties that we will meet along the way.

Science can help with all these.

Each culture has good, bad and indifferent sides to it. Muslims have strong family ties The west a more hierarchical structure to society. Only you can actually decide whether they are good or bad for you.

That will all take a very long time and we should only work by encouragement and not just moaning all the time, a technique one would have thought Humanists would have learned by now in our own tussle with the churches in this country.

I offer two examples for anyone to think through and comment on – hopefully covering all five of the points above – making some predictions about No 5 perhaps.

Muslims in my opinion need to control the imams. We should be grateful (is that the word?) that mostly our churches have a primate, ready built structure for their teachers plus a discussion group e.g synod. Getting to start preaching on methods of differentiation between the mixed messages getting to.
How will Muslims tackle that ? Perhaps by a completely different method.

I think that the media has too much freedom and that somehow we have to control them giving accused and damaged victims get as much power at their own fingertips. I do believe in press freedom and I am not suggesting how to square the circle but having rejected LEVESON the press need to come up with something as effective and keeps everybody happy.

How are they going to achieve that through examining the culture of the press?

I was pleased to see presentations of the kind mentioned taking place at Conway Hall and without following all of it was disappointed with some remarks, but it is early days and many more are needed. The panel have little influence with the Muslim community and their real role may be to advise on what initiatives we take will not work.

]]>Comment on Please don’t bash our media freedoms: one humanist’s plea for careful language by Tonyhttp://humanistlife.org.uk/2015/02/05/please-dont-bash-our-media-freedoms-one-humanists-plea-for-careful-language/#comment-336703
Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:29:37 +0000http://humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1015#comment-336703Hi Jen, and thanks for taking the time to respond. The human rights and EU examples you’ve highlighted are highly technical, specialist and complex. I think one therefore also needs to recognise that part of the job done by mainstream, non-specialist media organisations also involves “boiling down” or simplifying very complex subjects for a general audience. Not everyone can be expected to read or understand the kind of websites you’ve quoted. Trying to present complex matters in a clear, simple way is not an easy thing to do and some media organisations certainly do it better than others. We don’t live in a perfect world of accurate perfection. But you can’t surely be saying that publications like, for instance, “The Economist” or “The Financial Times” aren’t doing a decent job? There is also a vast plethora of specialist publications. I’d also want to add that the blogs and websites that you’ve cited themselves constitute journalism. That’s the beauty of the digital media tools that are available in a free democracy. Everyone can participate…… As far as the Pope story is concerned, his remarks were reported in varying ways by different media organisations. How many versions have you actually read? There are very, very many versions. You haven’t actually named the organisations you feel misrepresented him. But at any event, there wasn’t just one single monolithic identical interpretation of what he said by all of “the media”….. I agree with you absolutely about the criminality of phone hacking and entrapment and said so in my piece …….You say your father thought: “All Muslims are Terrorists”. But can his view really have been as cut and dried as that, since you also maintain that he is “intelligent and educated”?…….From my experience of working in this field for a very long time I simply can’t accept your bald (and entirely unsubstantiated) assertion that: “some journalists write honestly and accurately and fairly and then their work gets altered by editors”. It simply doesn’t happen like that.
]]>